V. Natarajan v. P. Mani — 1996 DIGILAW 1077 (MAD)

Judgment :- 1. The landlords are the petitioners herein. The landlords/Petitioners filed R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 against the tenant. The petitioners in the eviction petition are husband and wife. They became the owners of the premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street, Madras under a sale deed executed by C.K. Rathinasubapathy, C.K. Palanidoss and C.K. Srinivasamoorthy. The tenant is occupying the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/. He was carrying on business in selling beetel nut in the petition premises. After the purchase of petition premises by the petitioners herein, the tenant attorned the tenancy in their favour. 2. The 1st petitioner is running a tea Stall at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras 3. The petitioners purchased the petition premises for the purpose of accommodating the 1st petitioners business in the petition premises. He is running his tea stall in a rented premises. He could not improve his business because of the strict conditions imposed by his landlord. His landlord raises objection for running the tea stall at midnight. He is also demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 500/ per month. The 1st petitioner is facing threat of eviction from the landlord. He is having no other building of his own to carry on his business. The petition premises is suitable for the running of the 1st petitioners business. The 2nd petitioner has no objection for running the tea stall of the 1st petitioner in the petition premises. The petitioners state that the respondent is carrying on similar business at Devarajulu Mudali Street, Govindappa Naicken Street and Kasi Chetty Street. The petitioners sent a legal notice calling upon the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premise. But there was no reply from the tenant. It was, therefore, pleaded that the 1st petitioner requires the petition premises for accommodating his own business. 3. The tenant filed a counter, denying all the allegations made by the petitioners. The tenant denied that the 1st petitioner is running his tea stall in a rented premises and that the petition premises was purchased by them for the purpose of running their business. 3. The tenant filed a counter, denying all the allegations made by the petitioners. The tenant denied that the 1st petitioner is running his tea stall in a rented premises and that the petition premises was purchased by them for the purpose of running their business. He also denied the averments of the petitioner that they are not owning any other building in the city of Madras for running their business and that the petition premises is suitable for running their business. The tenant also denied the allegation that the petitioners are facing threat of eviction from their landlord. He also denied the allegation that he is carrying on similar business at Devarajulu Mudali Street, Govindappa Naicken Street and Kasi Chetty Street. He sent a reply dated 27.6.1986 to the notice issued by the petitioners. The reference to the alleged recitals in the sale deed are only self serving. The petitioners filed the present eviction petition with the ulterior motive of extracting more rent. The petition premises is not suitable for running tea stall since the actual measurement is only 4 and as per patta the measurement is 6. The minimum required space, according to Corporation Rules, for running a tea stall is 10- 10. There is no bonafide on the part of the petitioners in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. 4. The 1st petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1. The respondent examined himself as R.W. 1. The petitioner filed 12 documents. The respondent did not file any document. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller held that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. However, on appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, considering the facts arising in this case set aside the order of eviction and dismissed the eviction petition since according to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlords failed to establish their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. As against this order, the landlords are in Revision before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petition premises was purchased by the petitioner For the purpose of running their business. The 1st petitioner is running a tea stall in a rented premises. As against this order, the landlords are in Revision before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petition premises was purchased by the petitioner For the purpose of running their business. The 1st petitioner is running a tea stall in a rented premises. He could not improve his business because of the strict conditions imposed by his landlord. His landlord raised objection for running the tea stall at midnight. The 1st petitioner is also facing the threat of eviction. The first petitioner is not having any other building of his own in the city of Madras. There is no Corporation Rule that for running a tea stall the minimum space required in 10-0. The petitioner never demanded higher rent from the tenant. Therefore, the requirement of the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is bona fide. The Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that it is not correct to state that the tenant is carrying on similar business at three places. The petition premises is not suitable for running a tea stall measures only 4, where as per the Corporation Rules the minimum space required for running a tea stall is 10 - 10. The petitioners are not facing any threat of eviction by their landlord. Since the tenant refused to pay the higher rent decided by the landlord, they have file d the present eviction petition. 7. In R.C.A. proceedings, the landlords sought to file the sale deed dated 15.3.1989, petitions and counters filed in R.C.O.P. Nos. 2087 and 2612 of 1989 as additional documents, and the same were allowed to be filed as additional documents. They were marked as Ex. R1 to R5. The sale deed dated 15.3.1989 would go to show that the petitioner purchased the petition premises for Rs. 40,000/. The purchase was made after the filing of R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986. The tenant occupying the premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street filed R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989 against his tenant at No. 219, Mint Street under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for carrying on his business. 40,000/. The purchase was made after the filing of R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986. The tenant occupying the premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street filed R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989 against his tenant at No. 219, Mint Street under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for carrying on his business. In R.C.O.P. No. 2087/89 the tenant filed a counter stating that the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 or 1986 is not the owner, but one R.K. Devanathan is the owner. When the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1996 was the tenant under the prior owner in respect of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras, he was paying the rent to the said landlord, but he did not file any petition to state that the petition premises belonged to Devanathan and therefore, he never made any attempt to deposit the rent in court. After the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 purchased the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, the petitioners in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 contended that they are not the owners of the said premises. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioners. According to the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 he would vacate the petition premises if the petitioners in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 evicted the premises belonging to the tenant at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras. According to the learned counsel appearing for the tenant, the landlords are manipulating the affairs in order to get eviction. There is no bonafide on the part of the landlords in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. For all these reasons it was submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. 8. By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction of the Rent Controller on two grounds, viz. For all these reasons it was submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. 8. By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction of the Rent Controller on two grounds, viz. (1) that the petitioners in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 refused to accept the respondent/tenant therein as the owner in respect of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras3 and also not paying the rent to them, but depositing the same into the court; and (ii) according to the Corporation Rules the minim um space required for running a tea stall is 10 - 10, whereas the petition premises is admeasuring only 4 and as per patta 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners these reasons are unsustainable, because the respondent is not the owner of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras, and Devathanam is the owner and therefore, the rent was deposited into the Court. The defence taken in R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989 filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 would not, in any way, go to show that there is bona fide on the part of the petitioners herein in seeking eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Further when the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 is the owner of the premises at No. 219 Mint Street, he cannot file eviction petition against the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986. It was also submitted that no document was produced to show that there is a Corporation Rule that the minimum space required for running a tea stall is 10? 0. It was therefore submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners herein should be disposed of independently without taking into consideration R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989 filed by the respondent herein. 9. Heard the rival submissions. Petitioners herein are husband and wife. The 1st petitioner is running a tea stall at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras3. They purchased the premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street for running their business in their own premises. The 1st petitioner is running his tea stall in a rented premises. 9. Heard the rival submissions. Petitioners herein are husband and wife. The 1st petitioner is running a tea stall at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras3. They purchased the premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street for running their business in their own premises. The 1st petitioner is running his tea stall in a rented premises. The tenant at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street, and his wife purchased the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, wherein the 1st petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 is carrying on his business. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 filed a petition for eviction against the 1st petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 for obtaining the possession of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act since he required the same for running his business. The eviction petition filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 was numbered as R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989. Since eviction was not ordered the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 filed a reviction petition before this Court, which was numbered as C.R.P. No. 3486 of 1986 wherein notice of motion was ordered. In R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989, the 1st petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 took the defence that Mani and Chandrika were not the owner of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, but one Devanathan is the owner. Accordingly, the rent was deposited into the court by filing R.C.O.P. No. 2612 of 1989. 10. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners herein established their bona fides in requiring the petition premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street, Madras under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. According to the petitioners, they are running their stall in a rented premises and that they could not improve their business because of the strict conditions imposed by their landlord and the threat of eviction they are facing. They purchased the petition premises only with a view to accommodate their business therein. The first petitioner is not owning any other premises of his own in the city of Madras. They purchased the petition premises only with a view to accommodate their business therein. The first petitioner is not owning any other premises of his own in the city of Madras. Eviction ordered by the Rent Controller was reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioners refused to vacate the premises at No. 219, Mint Street for which the Respondent is the landlord and that the petitioners refused to pay the rent to the respondent on the ground that he is not the owner of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, but one Devanathan is the owner; and that the corporation rules prohibits running of tea stalls in a space less that 100, the petitioners cannot run their tea stall in the petition premises which is actually 4 4 and as per patta 6 . But it remains to be seen that the petitioners herein are running their tea stall in a rented premises and that they purchased the petition premises with a view to accommodate their business therein. The petitioners could not improve their business because of the strict conditions imposed by their landlord and that they are facing the threat of eviction. According to the petitioners, the respondent is conducting similar business in three different places. According to the respondent he would like to handover the possession of the premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street, Madras to the petitioners provided the petitioners hand over the possession of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras to him. 11. It remains to be seen that the petitioners herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 for eviction under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Similarly the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989 against the petitioners herein for eviction under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act with regard to the premises at No. 219 Mint Street. Both these R.C.O.Ps. have got to be disposed on merits. 12. As already stated the first petitioner herein is running his tea stall in a rented premises and he could not improve his business because of the stringent conditions imposed by their landlord. They purchased the petition premises with a view to run their business in their own premises. The first petitioner is not having any other premises of his own in the city of Madras. They purchased the petition premises with a view to run their business in their own premises. The first petitioner is not having any other premises of his own in the city of Madras. According to the petitioners herein the premises at No. 219, Mint Street, belongs to one Devanathan and it does not belong to the respondent herein and his wife. Therefore the petitioners herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 2612 of 1989 for depositing the rent into Court and accordingly they are doing so. The defence taken by the petitioners herein in the eviction petition filed against them by the respondent herein would not go to show that there is no bonafide on their part in requiring the petition premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street. Therefore the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controler on the ground that the petitioners herein are resisting the order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989. 13. According to the Rent Control Appellate Authority the Corporation Rules prohibit the running of Tea stall in a space less than 10 10 and as the petition premises actually admeasures 4 4 and as per patta 6 the petitioners cannot run their tea stall in the petition premises. But no such Corporation Rules, imposing the prohibition was shown before this Court. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in stating that the petitioners cannot run their tea stall in the petition premises. 14. It remains to be seen that in R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989 filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act with regard to the petition premises at No. 219, Mint Street, the order of eviction was not passed. The respondent herein filed C.R.P. No. 3486 of 1996 wherein this Court ordered notice of motion. The bona fide requirement of the respondent herein with regard to the petition premises therein will be decided in that case. Simply because the petitioners herein are resisting the eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989 it cannot be said that there is no bona fide on their part in filing R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986. There is no evidence on the side of the respondent herein to show that the petitioners herein demanded higher rent. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are facing threat of eviction from their landlord. There is no evidence on the side of the respondent herein to show that the petitioners herein demanded higher rent. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are facing threat of eviction from their landlord. 15. The respondent herein stated that the first petitioner is having two wives and the first petitioner has purchased three shops at No. 20, Mint Street in their names by sale deed dated 26.3.1990. In the said premises one tenant vacated the premises and the same fell vacant in the month of April, 1996 and it still remains vacant. Since the 2nd respondent herein needs a nonresidential shop at No. 220, Mint Street the petition for eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners require the petition premises for his business and he is not the owner of the property at No. 220, Mint Street, Madras. On the basis that his wife purchased the property, the respondent herein cannot say that there is no bona fide on the part of the first petitioner herein to ask for eviction under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. This line of reasoning given by the first petitioner appears to be acceptable. 16. The fact that the petitioners herein are resisting the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent herein and the fact that the first petitioners wife purchased the property in her name would not in any way go to show that the petitioners herein are manipulating the affairs to get an order of eviction. In fact, the petitioners herein submitted that there is no bonafide on the part of the respondent herein to file R.C.O.P. No. 2087 of 1989 since they are owners of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street. Since subsequent events can be taken into account CMP. No. 9566 stands allowed and the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.3.1990 is taken and marked as additional document. Request was made to the learned counsel for the respondent herein to bring the other CRP. No. 3486 of 1986 for a joint disposal. But this was not fructified. 17. Since subsequent events can be taken into account CMP. No. 9566 stands allowed and the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.3.1990 is taken and marked as additional document. Request was made to the learned counsel for the respondent herein to bring the other CRP. No. 3486 of 1986 for a joint disposal. But this was not fructified. 17. Attention of this Court was drawn to the decisions reported in 1984-1-M.L.J. 410=97 L.W. 516 ( Abdul Rahman v. S. Sadhasivam ): 1984-II-M.L.J. 983 ( A. Emberumanar v. K. Raghavan ); 100 L.W. 213 ( A.S. Kannan v. Zachria ); 1987 4 SCC 404 ( Krishnan Nair & Ors. v. ous Badsha ): 1987 4 SCC 404 ( Krishnan Nair & Ors. v. Dous Badsha ) 1987-2-M.L.J. 102=(1986) 99 L.W. 966 ( A. Khan Mohamed v. Narayana Nambiar ); 1990-2-L.W. 289 ( Shapoorji Pollanji & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., and another v. A. Nichat and another ); AIR 1990 Madras 30 D.B. ( M. Aishath Najya v. Lalchand Kewalra ); 1990 L.W. 595 ( Nataraja v. V.N. Sundaram ); 1994-2-L.W. 152 ( A. Sankaran and another v. Bala Sundaram & another ); l988-2-L.W. (SC) Hameedia Hardwares Case ); 99 L.W. 272 ( A.C. Punya Koti v. K. Meera Bai ); 1993-I-SCC 626 ( Bhanwar Lal v. T.E.A. Abdul Kadar ) 18. I have gone through all there decisions. The fact remains, that decision in each case depends upon its own facts. In fact, in the present case, the petitioners established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii)_ of the Act. The fact that the 1st petitioner herein is resisting the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent herein would not go to show that the petitioners herein are manipulating the affairs to get an order of eviction against the respondent herein. The fact that the petitioners herein are requested to vacate from the premises at No. 219, Mint Street and the 1st petitioner is not having a nonresidential premises of his own in the city of Madras and that the petitioners wanted to accommodate their business in the petition premises would go to show that they deserve possession as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Hameedia Hardware Case (cited supra). The fact that the respondent herein filed a revision against the petitioners herein in respect of the premises at No. 219, Mint Street and the same is, pending, in this Court would not in any way affect the order being passed in the present revision. 19. Since the grounds on which the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller are unsustainable in as much as the 1st petitioner herein established his bona fide requirement of the petition premises under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, I consider that the Rent Controller was correct in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners herein established their bona fides in requiring the petition premises under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and ordering eviction. In the result, the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority stands set aside and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in R.O.C.P. No. 2032 of 1986 stands restored, and the reviction petition is allowed. No costs. Time for eviction, two months. For the reasons stated in the for going paragraphs CMP. No. 996 of 1996 is also allowed.